W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > October 2015

Re: "An Ontology of the Digital Wallet"

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:03:33 +0200
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5627A945.1090908@gmail.com>
On 2015-10-21 14:52, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> "An Ontology of the Digital Wallet" v0.001
>
> 1. The "digital wallet" is described here as an entity with a set of relationship-dependent functions, uncoupled from any particular business model or implementation architecture.
> ...
>
> With discussion remaining on this list, anyone is invited to fix and further this germination of an ontology here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/a_digital_wallet_ontology

The ISO folks are hoping for adoption here as well:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Oct/0065.html

Although I don't know much about ISO 20022, I guess it doesn't fully cover the "Webby" part of payments (otherwise we would be ready).

As far as I know, ISO also doesn't cover security which may look like a minor detail but *may* (when you actually take a stab at the topic), have a profound impact on the entire design (which BTW yet another reason why I disagree with the W3C payment charter).

A somewhat funny detail I noticed when converting related stuff from XML to JSON is that multiple-instance objects such as order-lines, tend to get an "s" added in their JSON-incarnation:

XML
<element name="orderLine" type="..." maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

JSON
"orderLines": [{line-1...},{line-2...}...{line-n}]

Naturally nothing prevents you from using "orderLine" in JSON as well but it sort of "feels" wrong...
Or maybe I'm simply too much into aesthetics? :-)

Anders

>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>
> Mobile: 819-593-5983 <tel:819-593-5983>
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2015-10-21 14:15, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>>     <snip>
>>
>>     Major commerical suppliers of competing digital wallet implementations may or may not like the framework, may or may not use it to describe themselves, but at least the broader community can describe and differentiate their concepts and functional implementations more pragmatically with a common ontology.
>
>     That's the wallet suppliers' problem in a nutshell: More work but no benefit since their own (mostly secret) ontologies obviously work.
>
>     Currently a wallet is tightly coupled to a business model which greatly complicates standardization efforts.
>
>     Anders
>
>
>>
>>     Joseph Potvin
>>     Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>     The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>     jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>
>>     Mobile: 819-593-5983 <tel:819-593-5983>
>>     LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423>
>>
>>     On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Asbjørn Ulsberg <<mailto:asbjorn@ulsberg.no>asbjorn@ulsberg.no <mailto:asbjorn@ulsberg.no>> wrote:
>>
>>         2015-10-21 12:07 GMT+02:00 Joseph Potvin <<mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca>>:
>>
>>         > My suggestion is that we work to "understand what the various camps agree
>>         > and disagree about" in defining "digital wallet". I presume you don't
>>         > disagree with that! :-)
>>
>>         I at least agree with this.
>>
>>         > "We believe that one reason for this is that the digital wallet market is
>>         > fragmented and providers use incompatible programming interfaces.
>>         > [...]
>>
>>         In my experience, this is true.
>>
>>         > [...] The proposed standards from W3C will help ensure interoperability
>>         > of different solutions by standardizing the programming interfaces."
>>
>>         I really hope it will, but only time will tell. I think we need Apple,
>>         Google and (now) Microsoft on board for a final W3C Recommendation to
>>         become a relevant industry standard. But I might be wrong.
>>
>>         --
>>         Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=- <mailto:asbjorn@ulsberg.no>asbjorn@ulsberg.no <mailto:asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
>>         «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 15:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:43 UTC